Renters’ Rights Bill set to be introduced with immediate Section 21 ban

What does ‘immediate’ section 21 ban mean?

“Landlords and letting agents will be legally required to publish an asking rent for their property. They will also be banned from asking for, encouraging, or accepting any bids above this price”
The only answer to that is to Dutch auction the prices. List a high price but tell the agent, or list on the advert that the price is negotiable.

Houses could sit empty longer while slowly reducing the price to hit market rate.

“Renters have been let down for too long and too many are stuck in disgraceful conditions, powerless to act because of the threat of a retaliatory eviction hanging over them.”

Landlords have been let down for too long and too many are stuck with unfair prejudice, powerless to act because of the threat of a over regulation and asymmetric relationships with government and tenants hanging over them.

There was no PRS in the People’s Nirvana of theUSSR, the housing sucked.

Reply to the comment left by JB at 11/09/2024 – 07:42
The earliest it can mean is when the bill comes into force. Today is the first reading in parliament. This means they read out the title and order the bill to be published. Everything is speculative till then.

The bill then may get amended at committee or 2nd reading in either house (unlikely in this case).

So if in doubt serve s21 now.

Yes, the bill has to get through Parliament but as Labour have the most seats, it’s certain to and fast!

‘Deputy Prime Minister, Angela Rayner said: “Renters have been let down for too long and too many are stuck in disgraceful conditions, powerless to act because of the threat of a retaliatory eviction hanging over them.’

Retaliatory eviction is all ready illegal, why not just use existing measures, ah, soundbite politics.

The claim of ‘500,000’ claim appears spurious, can Beadle or Rayner inform us where they are and hiw this is known?

I have no objection to S21 being abolished if, and only if, it is replaced with a robust, dependable legal process whereby I can get my property back from a bad tenant. In this, I agree with the NRLA.

What a dependable process looks like for me is:
– where a tenant is more than 2 months in arrears, mandatory possession within 15 days of submitting the court claim (no ifs, no buts, no bailiffs, no “breathing space” or any other excuses)
– where a tenant is showing repeated anti-social behaviour, mandatory possession in 7 days of submitting the court claim (same as above)
– where the landlord needs to sell, mandatory possession in 2 months.

For this to happen, the legal process needs to be digitised and streamlined. With AI, it is very easy to automate the legal process, it really is quite simple to design a functional system that removes humans from most of the process.
As long as the landlord has uploaded all the right evidence, a MANDATORY possession is issued. If tenants refuse to move, sanctions start kicking in, for example, the council can remove support for the tenant or benefits are stopped etc.

Keeping a bad tenant in a property for longer than necessary, means that a good tenant is left homeless. A protracted legal process is penalising prospective good tenants, as well as incentivising even more landlords to leave the sector.

As for the rest of the Bill:
Bidding wars: I will now set the highest rent possible and take it from there. Once again, tenants will end up paying the price of ill-thought policies.
Tenants on benefits: I stopped taking them a long time ago, but given that they will fail the tenant referencing check I have every legitimate reason not to take them.
I don’t do pets (I tell all my tenants that I am allergic to cats, dogs, etc.)

No sane landlord would wish to serve Section 21 on a good tenant without cause to do so.
If the PRS was profitable, there would be a queue of new landlords eager to snap up the rental properties with tenants in situ. Government action is responsible for making the PRS unattractive to investors.
So now, rather than the few bad landlords seeking possession to avoid some relatively minor repairs, hoards of landlords and potential landlords will be choosing to invest their money elsewhere.
It’ll be a bad day for good tenants and a good day for bad tenants. More importantly, it’s really bad news for those potentially good tenants in temporary accommodation.

” “Most landlords act in a responsible way but a small number of unscrupulous ones are tarnishing the reputation of the whole sector by making the most of the housing crisis and forcing tenants into bidding wars.”
So Ms Rayner, you’re saying it’s a small number of unscrupulous LLs tarnishing the reputation of the sector? Yet this legislation will punish ALL landlords, even the majority – the good, compliant ones – who, as a direct result of this proposed punitive legislation are selling up and leaving the sector, leaving the unscrupulous poor LLs who don’t care to conform to the rules and regs to continue.
Does this sound sensible to you, particularly when you already have the measures in place to deal with the unscrupulous LLs, but do not enforce them, allowing them to continue their poor practices?
Do you think that your proposed reforms will “protect tenants”? No, they too will suffer as the supply of properties diminishes.
Oh yes – I also think that clueless politicians such as you and the media with your ruinous ill-conceived policies are the ones doing a far greater job tarnishing the reputation of the PRS whilst significantly worsening the housing crisis.